Judiciary Chair’s Endorsement of Barack Obama Points to Pro-Abortion Judges

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Jan 18, 2008   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Judiciary Chair’s Endorsement of Barack Obama Points to Pro-Abortion Judges Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 18,

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Thursday. The endorsement is another sign that the Illinois senator will only appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will uphold the 35-year-old decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

Leahy’s name has been synonymous with judicial battles and his endorsement of Obama is a vote of confidence in Obama’s decision to appoint only pro-abortion judges.

The Vermont senator was one of the leaders against the appointment of pro-life jurist Robert Bork by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

He also led the fight against Clarence Thomas in 1991 and was one of the members of the panel to try to pin down Thomas on Roe. Since his nomination, Thomas has made it clear in his opinions that the high court should overturn the infamous abortion case.

For his part, Obama has made his pro-abortion views clear repeatedly and said he would only name judges to the Supreme Court that will side with Roe.

"I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy," he said in a November presidential debate.

Regarding the legality of abortion, his campaign told the pro-abortion web site RH Reality Check in December, that Obama "supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade."

Obama also criticized the high court for upholding the national ban on partial-birth abortions and claimed the court ignored science even though doctors say the three-day abortion procedure is never medically necessary.

"There is an inconsistency, and I believe a hypocrisy, in terms of how we see these decisions being issued," he said after the decision. "When the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside."